' This judgment shall dispose of FAOs Nos.26, 27, 7 and 73 of 1991, in which the same questions of law and fact arise for deter ination which are directed against similar orders passed by the trial Court on 19th July, 1990 and 27th of November, 1990.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of all these appeals are that the respondents were awarded contract by the appellants for the construction of certain work. Subsequently, disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondents filed applications under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes to arbitration. These applications were contested by the appellants but were allowed by the trial Court on 19th of July, 1990 and on 27th of November 1990 arbitrators were also appointed.
3. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants was that as the respondent had failed to fulfil the condition precedent prescribed by clause 25-A of the agreement for invoking the Arbitration clause, the petitions under section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the respondents were not maintainable. It was explained that according to clause 25-A before seeking reference to Arbitration, the respondents should have referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer for decision but as they failed to do so, their petitions before the trial Court were not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents did not contest the legal position but emphasized in all these cases that the respondents had fulfilled the requirements of clause 25- A of the agreement between the parties.
5. A perusal of the petitions under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by respondent, show that it was specifically asserted in para. 6 that a complaint in writing was made to the Superintending Engineer concerned for decision but as he failed to take a decision within the stipulated period, reference to Arbitration was necessary. In the written reply these averments were not disputed, though it was pleaded that the appellants did not submit any claim to respondent No,2 and as such, he has violated clause 25-A of the agreement. However, there is nothing in this clause which requires that in the event of dispute between the parties, a claim must be filed before the Superintending Engineer. This clause only postulates that in such an event, the dispute must be referred to Superintending Engineer. This requirement stood duly complied with by the respondents by making a written complaint to the Superintending Engineer which fact though pleaded was not disputed in the written reply of appellants. Consequently there was no need of submitting any separate claim.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants in the same context also argued that the trial. Court should have decided the matter after framing an issue on the subject. There is no force in this contention. As the averments made in this respect were not denied by the appellants there was no necessity of framing any issue.
' There is no force in these appeals which are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.